In the Spotlight

Powered by
Movable Type 4.1
Copyright 2007, The Global Interdependence Initiative, a Project of the Aspen Institute
The opinions on this website represent those of the author alone. They are not the opinions, nor are they endorsed by, the Global Interdependence Initiative or the Aspen Institute.

« Positive Developments at the World Bank (!) | Main | And Everyone Working on U.S. Public Diplomacy Said Amen »

Two Old Attack Dogs Fight for Common Ground

I admit it; I attended today's luncheon conversation with pundits Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel -- speaking about their new book, "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War that is Destroying America" -- a real cynic. I was not cynical about the need to find and emphasize common ground in American politics; I was cynical about whether an emphasis on common ground will get anyone elected. I left the book talk very encouraged and on my way to being convinced.

Why? Thomas and Beckel aren't pie-in-the-sky, non-aligned outsiders with a crazy dream to clean up politics. Thomas is a conservative Republican, Beckel a liberal Democrat. They spent decades yelling at each other (and people like the other) on talk shows, playing up wedge issues as political consultants, crafting attack ads and doing everything possible to mobilize a small, vocal base and marginalize everyone else. They know how "polarizers" (their word) work from long experience. They're friends with Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi. And they lay out specific electoral strategies for how Congressional and presidential candidates can (and, they argue, will) win election by doing things differently.

I also appreciate that Thomas and Beckel don't claim that cheap political tricks to gin up the base don't work. Tom Delay, Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are facts of life. Rather, they claim that candidates can make such tactics too costly. It's fascinating to hear them talk through the relationships between political reporters, pollsters, consultants and campaign staff -- and to envision how a candidate would skirt his way through this maze without indulging these players in the normal fashion.

Thomas and Beckel take TV networks, political consultants, debate organizers, and many other "professional politicizers" to task for sinking a huge stake into political polarization. Sadly, I fear their accusations are truer than even they probably know: visit publisher Harper Collins' page detailing "Common Ground." Yes, that's an advertisement for Ann Coulter's email list sitting just to the right. Polarization pays.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.gii-exchange.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/405

Comments

Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton's chief strategist, has a simple, but insightful argument for why it's better to target swing voters than focus on the base. Suppose you have 10 voters, split 50/50. If one voter is convinced to change his mind, the vote becomes 60/40. If one voter is added to the pool, thanks to your efforts to turnout the base, the vote becomes 55/45 against you. If you turnout another base voter, you're back to 50/50. In other words, it takes two new base voters to overcome one swing voter that changed his mind, and three new voters to win. So, in almost all cases, it's a better strategic decision to get one swing voter to switch sides than it is to bring three new base voters to the polls.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)